[I-1] A Parent’s Purpose for Schooling

A Parent’s Purpose for Schooling –Accommodating Individual Differences Through Choice in Specialized Education
by Mikael Powell

As a parent, I have several functions for the elementary education system. Formalized schooling is a way to constructively occupy my child’s time while I am at work. It is the tradition that links my youth experiences to that of my child. Most importantly, this vehicle purports to ensure that my child has the opportunity to know just as much as another student does. To that end, I have a fundamental expectation of the school system - I require that a school system meet my child where he is and advance him and that I am influential in that process. While educators may focus on the broad scope, my responsibility lies with my individual student. Therefore, I believe that all parents should have the choice to implement an ILP (Individual Learning Plan). Hence, I will outline the evolution of my beliefs and proceed into my purpose for schooling. I will delineate precepts for my ideal school, outline similar successful programs and acknowledge critics to my vision.

I. Evolution of Beliefs
My notion of the fundamental purpose of schooling has evolved substantially from its inception. I entered parenthood with clear expectations, which were shaped by my personal scholastic recollections, my son’s experiences in the school system and my subsequent involvement in school administration.

Firstly, my childhood experience in school was wonderful. I was typically a ‘B’ student and I thoroughly loved the rudiment of schooling. I was involved in several clubs in elementary school, served as a student representative in high school was elected student president of my college. I expected that being a parent allowed for vicarious reenactment of my scholastic years, so I whole-heartedly jumped into my parental role serving as the homeroom ‘mom’ for every grade from 4K onward. Early on, my child’s experiences were much like mine and I felt that, unlike others schools, ours was “doing a good or excellent job”.[1]

Unfortunately, with each successive year it was apparent that the standard learning environment was not adequate for my child to excel. I realized that traditionally, education is broadcast but learning is phenomenally experienced in a very personal way (actually at the neuron level). I looked for an environment that provided the accommodations needed in an inclusion model. I discovered a new public K – 8th grade charter school, enrolled in the program and subsequently served on the Executive committee of the Board of Directors for the organization that operates their schools in Texas and Arkansas.

For 3 years I worked with the educational professionals to develop and implement a Texas required IEP for my family. In the fourth year, I sought the same accommodations, although no longer qualifying in the state plan. Moreover, for the full four school years I served on the board of directors for a school in which over 67% of the students were under an IEP plan. Thus, I have experienced the use of individual learning plans, both on a personal and administrative level. When all teachers in the school are in a comprehensive skills training program, then I see learning plans as a strong vehicle for parental involvement and a means to accommodate individual differences.

II. My purpose for schooling
My purpose for schooling should be the same for all children. It is to take a child where he is and advance him. As a parent, I should have the option to be an active participant in my son’s education experience and a determinant in each step to realize his goals. I believe that the methods for reaching this ideal is the framework of state required educational plans for the disabled (and co-existing individual learning plan facsimiles) and choice in the selection of charter schools and special magnet programs that offer a mission in alignment with my beliefs.

Firstly, I use the acronym ‘ILP’ (Individual Learning Plan) to describe both a state required IEP for students with disabilities and a similar quasi-contractual document fashioned to provide unique accommodations and goals. An IEP is a vehicle to prescribe instruction based on academic, social or behavioral needs. It must indicate the child's present levels of educational performance, list goals and instructional objectives, include a statement of the specific special education services needed and the extent of general inclusion. This plan must also formalize the dates for beginning and ending services and program assessment.[2] A meeting must be convened that includes the student (if appropriate), a parent, at least one of the student's special education teachers or regular education teachers and a local educational agency representative. State law also requires transitional services at age 16, but for this essay, I will focus on my purpose for the elementary education system. “When professionals understand the necessity for the IEP and the opportunity it provides for collaboration, dynamic planning, and successful implementation, the lawful intent of specially designed instruction will be fulfilled”[3].

Therefore, a well-developed and implemented learning plan must map verifiable goals and objectives to a student’s present level of performance based on diagnostic assessment. Moreover, the plan must cover all areas of instruction including Physical Education and peripheral courses outside of the student’s homeroom with a realistic look at these ‘external’ instructors and their skills and resources.

In addition, I look to choice in the charter school movement to prescribe a purpose of education acceptable to the parent that utilizes the learning plan format. It is beyond the scope of this paper to devise a framework of equitable parental choice for different models of education, however, whether by public or private schooling, a parent must consider the appropriate model for his values. While market-based choice education may ensure that an ILP option is available, parents must be wary that capitalism does not provide a situation that I liken to a quote from an architect about the public marketing of a prestigious traditional architecture firm. She said if an organization “believes only in survival through competition it must always be at war. And if the winner is preoccupied with winning he may find himself on a mountain he never would have climbed”.[4]

In developing the individual learning plan, the educational environment chosen should follow the framework and basic assessment rudiments of the IEP, while also allowing for the child’s learning style and character. The goal is to fashion a manner of instruction enabling the child to perform to his full potential -not tethered to the limits of assessed IQ but rather, achievement to capability based on a three-way agreement from the diagnostician, the teachers and the parents. Therefore, ILP should allow parents to set the masterly level for the lesson plan based on their personal knowledge of their child and exceeding the minimum state required achievement for the course.

III. What would a school or other educational setting that embodied my vision look like?
My purpose of education is seen in the proliferation of charter schools that have a high percentage of students with an IEP and offer total inclusion in classrooms. Other choice-based schools that offer an ILP and a flexible curriculum envision parts of my purpose for education. Of course, the school must have an internal achievement evaluation process to remain accountable to the students, parents and school mission, as well as to accomplish the requirements of state assessments.

IV. Similar programs and schools that are working
a. Chartered in 1994, The Visions School in Minneapolis, MN received a renewal in 1998. It educates students in grades K – 8 and has a population of about 50% special needs students with IEP’s. This charter school provides a comprehensive education to strengthen reading, math, science, and technology skills. They offer both an on-site clinic service for student assistance as well as an innovative core intervention program called Boost Up, which uses specific exercises to stimulate neurological responses while reading. This program purports to effectively treat ADD, ADHD, and a number of other learning disabilities with the EEG as a tool of intervention. Using their internal standards, they report that students average a 6 -8 month improvement in their reading after completing 80 hours in the Boost Up program. In addition, they removed 5% of their special education students from services. In their state assessment in reading, students gain an average of 1.5 years per school year.

b. FOCUS Center of Learning Inc. is a nonprofit organization that operates K – 8 charter schools in Texas and Arkansas. Chartered in 1998, the first Dallas school began operation in the fall of 1999. In the 2005 – 2006 school year, the Dallas school of 388 students is 96% African American, with over 70% of students on reduced lunches and more than 60% with an IEP. Focus Learning Academy has a mission to provide a multi-sensory curriculum that respects learning differences among students. Their major programs are a teacher training initiative that reinforces reading specialist skills, community outreach to acquaint the greater public to diagnostic testing and consulting services and a student structured language program.
Using their internal standards, they report that many students increase more than a year’s achievement in many courses and students that enter the school at risk for dropping out continue and excel in their studies. As the state of Texas experiments with how to assess a school in which the majority of students are in an alternate assessment, the school’s overall performance has ranged from ‘not assessed’ to ‘non-performing’ to ‘commended’. In 2002, at the low point, the rate of students in all grades meeting all TAKS test standards (panel recommendation) was 12.1%. Subsequently, it was cited as one of the top 7 most improved charter schools in Texas. While the school was in a probational status, students and families were supportive of the successes and enrollment has increased five-fold in 6 years.

c. The Wonderland Charter School in State College, PA is a Kindergarten program that believes in meeting the needs of each child in a comprehensive way. The Pennsylvania minimum requirement for a half-day kindergarten is 450 hours annually. The Wonderland Charter School has a curriculum of over 1000 hours per year! Each child undergoes diagnostics to identify strengths and weaknesses and to develop an Individualized Education Plan geared to their specific needs. Using their internal standards, they report that some kindergarteners are reading at the 2nd to 4th grade level and some are receiving specialized services thorough outside agencies. They employ two certified teachers in each classroom and use a highly structured curriculum to teach reading, math and language skills.

V. What one might say in the contrary

“I do not like these IEPs
I do not like them, Jeeze Louise!
We test, we check,
We plan, we meet,
But nothing ever seems complete….” [5]

Some teachers may identify with the sentiment of this poem. As with any program in education, there must be a shared agreement of the need, value and effectiveness of the plan . Moreover, the many players in this effort must have the skills, time and resources to perform successfully. This teacher’s perspective may be symptomatic of administration and professionalism issues.

Dissenters say anecdotally, that parents are not capable to make these important decisions about manner of instruction. They opine that teachers and diagnosticians can develop the best assessment and better advocate on my child’s behalf. I respond that parents intuitively know their children best and if a large, diverse group of parent’s resolutions are collectively aggregated, then their incites are more apropos than a trained diagnostician, “no matter how smart or well-informed [the assessor] is”.[6]

Contrarians remark that presently only a small percentage of students have an IEP and there may not be the capacity to bring this option to scale. However, I reply that many more students in the United States have some form of individual learning plan. Moreover, at the charter schools mentioned, at least half of the children have IEP’s and they are educated with students that operate on either a traditional learning plan or within a curriculum flexible enough to allow inclusion. Indeed, it may be beneficial for all students to experience the variety of personalities and abilities. Moreover, I contend that this option be available to parents. Those who argue that non-disabled students traditionally learn quite well with one lesson plan distributed to the entire class, can opt out of a specialized plan through intention or choice.

In conclusion, all parents deserve the option to implement an education plan orchestrated solely for their child's academic success. The purpose of schooling as accommodating each student to reach their highest achievement is both universal and individualized.

----------------------------------
[1] Jean Johnson and Ann Duffett, Where we are Now, (2003 The Pubic Agenda) page 10.
[2] Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Public Law 101-476 34 Code of Federal Regulations Section 300.346 September 29, 1992
[3] ERIC Digest #E600, Creating Useful Individualized Education Programs (1997 ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education).
[4] Sarah Harkness, The Architect’s Collaborative, Inc. (HBS 575-016, 1986) page 3.
[5] Author Unknown – Teacher’s parody of state required educational plans in the manner of Dr. Seuss, http://www.ldonline.org/article.php?max=20&id=417&loc=20
[6] James Surowiecki, The Wisdom of Crowds (2004 Doubleday) page 7.
(COPYRIGHT © 2006 MIKAEL POWELL. All Rights Reserved)